The connection with Crawford--Ironically,
Crawford was thought to be the leader of a conspiracy to make the former
northwest territories slave states in order to increase his chances of
being elected president. See Max Gordon, The
Slavery Conflict on the Illinois Frontier, M.A. Thesis, Columbia
University, 1961, pp. 77-78.

Warren's continued identification
of Coles as Crawford's tool--Warren later retracted his view of Coles
as a lackey of Crawford. On August 31, 1822, bemoaning Coles' victory in
the gubernatorial election, he writes in the Spectator, we do believe
that the circumstance of [Coles'] election is degrading to the
character of the state. The President can no longer hesitate, when he may
wish to get rid of a useless lackey, to appoint him to a fat office in
Illinois. Mr. Crawford, too, no doubt, will console himself for the
abortion of his interference in our congressional election, in the success
of Mr. Coles, which will enable him more effectually to intrigue for his
own promotion. But in the next issue of the Spectator, Sept. 7, 1822,
he says that in his latest remarks on Coles he was influenced by the
conviction, reached because of some unspecified events which transpired a
day or two previous to the Fourth of July celebration of 1819, that Coles
was a warm partisan of Crawford. He has since been told by a person he
trusts that Coles disapproved most strongly of Crawford's offer of the
position of bank examiner to Thomas, and of Thomas' acceptance of it. Had
he known of this earlier, Warren writes, his remarks on Coles would not
have been what they were.

On the same day, Sept. 7, 1822, the Intelligencer carried
an editorial which attempts to put the Crawford issue to rest. . .
. we do not believe, the editors write, that Mr. Coles has the
least disposition to promote the views of Mr. Crawford in relation to the
Presidency. Admitting that he is friendly to that gentleman, we have too
much confidence in his respect for the opinion of his constituents (the
people) to believe that he would lend the influence of a station to which
they have called him, to support a man, to whose pretensions they are, and
unquestionably will continue to be, opposed. The result of the last
Congressional election, has settled the question as to Mr. Crawford, in
this State. It is well known, that much of the opposition to Mr. Cook,
resulted from a desire to elect a Representative to Congress who would
vote for Mr. Crawford, as President, in the event of a failure of choice
by the people. Yet it is well known too that Mr. Coles was decidedly in
favor of Mr. Cook's election. And Mr. Warren may rest assured that Mr.
Crawford is not likely to find in Mr. Coles any "effectual" means "to
intrigue to his own promotion." Should we be disappointed, it will be
unexpected--equally so, because we think better of Mr. Coles as well as on
account of the nature of his support. Who were the friends of Mr. Crawford
in the Congressional elections--we mean his active and leading
friends--were they friends of Mr. Coles? The editor of the Spectator knows
well to the contrary.

Of course, the political contradiction stated here--that
Coles' friends were enemies of the man Coles supported for the Presidency,
and his friends were Coles' enemies--does much to explain why Coles'
political career in Illinois went into eclipse once the issue of slavery
was settled. Back

half a dozen FREE negroes--Warren reasoned
that once Coles' slaves crossed into the free state of Pennsylvania, they
were free. Thus Coles emancipated a few free negroes, keeping "legal"
title to others who actually no longer belonged to him. Back

In a
brief and dignified letter--Illinois Intelligencer, June 29, 1822.
Reprinted in Alvord, pp. 261-263. The letter has already been quoted from
extensively in Chapter 17. Back

particularly abusive account of
Coles--We have no other sources of information by which to make Mr.
Coles better known, Warren writes, than such as have been furnished
by himself. These are confined to court anecdotes, and incidents
necessarily connected with them, which occurred in Mr. Madison's family
during his administration; and before Mr. Coles became a candidate, they
were his constant theme, by day and by night. If he happened to speak on
any other subject, it was a digression. He would frequently, at Wiggins',
keep a bar-room audience in profound silence, from seven o'clock in the
evening until two in the morning . . . Back

he was certainly not in the picture--We know
that he was not in the picture as late as February 6, 1822, when Thomas
Reynolds, Jr. wrote to Edwards (see note above). So Warren's explanation
of his conduct is clearly inaccurate. Back

Washburne adds--Alvord, p. 51. Washburne, like
many another historian, gets carried away enough by his theories to
distort his data. It will have been seen, therefore, he writes,
that Mr. Coles was elected Governor by a large minority of the whole
vote cast, and through a division of the pro-slavery men. At this same
election, and where there was no such division, the pro-slavery men
elected their candidate for Lieutenant Governor, Adophus Hubbard, by a
decided majority . . . Yet in fact Hubbard won by fewer votes than
Coles (72), and gained office through a division of a majority
anti-slavery vote. In his 1863 autobiography Coles erroneously states that
there were only two candidates for the office of Lieutenant Governor. Back